Can military Keynesianism rescue Europe?

Some believe it offers an imperfect but necessary lifeline to pull Europe back from its current state of disarray

Can military Keynesianism rescue Europe?

Europe, both within and beyond the European Union, now confronts a deeply interlocking web of political, economic, and social crises. While Europeans are acutely aware of the scale of these challenges, the institutions and methods that once helped the continent weather past storms increasingly appear ill-equipped to address today's problems.

A survey of the continent's economic powerhouses—Germany, Britain, France and Italy—offers a bleak outlook; France remains ensnared in recurring political unrest; Britain endures persistent economic stagnation. Italy's economy continues to shrink; and Germany, despite its industrial might, has become a political lightweight—an incongruity that echoes throughout its society and culture.

Collectively, these conditions indicate a continent seeking a renewed role on the global stage, eager to secure a share in the rewards promised by the advancements in artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies.

Then came Russia's invasion of Ukraine—a seismic shock to the European psyche. It shattered the illusion that the era of major wars on European soil had ended, and that the horrors of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were a grim aberration rather than a harbinger. That illusion was underpinned by faith in the pacifying power of economic prosperity—one founded on openness and partnership—as a force strong enough to defuse nationalist resentments and lay to rest anxieties about shifting borders, geopolitical rivalries and terrorism.

For a time, mega energy deals with Russia and the construction of undersea pipelines were held up as emblems of a new era of cordial relations with Moscow, despite its starkly different political system. Yet with the outbreak of war in February 2022, that entire edifice collapsed. The spectres of the 19th and 20th centuries proved not only undimmed but startlingly resurgent.

The notion of military Keynesianism has emerged as a radical response to Europe's economic malaise

A search for new solutions

The convergence of internal structural crises—both political and economic—with the revival of an external threat prepared to wield its full arsenal in the name of national security has compelled Europeans to seek new avenues. These solutions must offer both safety and economic rejuvenation, however temporary.  At the same time, the US is undergoing profound transformations of its own, further complicating Europe's strategic outlook.

Europe's contribution to the scientific and technological revolutions shaping the future economy is alarmingly negligible. The race for global leadership in these fields has become a fierce contest between the United States and China—two powerhouses facing off in the decades ahead—while others struggle merely to defend their place in this unforgiving landscape.

The notion of "military Keynesianism" has emerged as a radical response to Europe's economic malaise—an adaptation of John Maynard Keynes's ideas, reinterpreted through a distinctly political and military lens. This approach is founded on a stark assumption: that Europe's economic crisis cannot be resolved within its current political framework, nor in the context of fierce global competition for markets, where powers such as China and the United States are far better equipped to absorb shocks, losses and volatility.

According to this perspective, the only viable route forward lies in a renewed role for the state in managing the economy—not through conventional welfare or infrastructure programmes, but through military expenditure. This spending is directed towards both the private sector, via the military-industrial complex, and the public sector, through investment in national armies and security institutions.

Critics of military Keynesianism argue that, while it may provide a short-term stimulus, it does not constitute a lasting solution

The shift is already underway. Between 2022 and 2024, European military spending increased from approximately €219bn ($252bn) to €343bn ($394bn), according to figures from the European Council. Projections suggest this could reach $400bn by 2025. Part of this funding is allocated to modernising Britain's and France's nuclear arsenals, reinforcing the so-called "nuclear triad"—strategic missiles, bombers and submarines capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Additional resources are being directed toward recruitment campaigns and research into military technologies.

It is important to distinguish between countries like Poland, which prioritise their military budgets for acquiring foreign-made weapons and equipment, and others, such as France and Britain, which allocate public investment to domestic defence industries.

Unsustainable approach

Critics of military Keynesianism argue that, while it may provide a short-term stimulus, it does not constitute a lasting solution. Historical examples—such as the United States during World War II or the Soviet Union during the Cold War—demonstrate that although military spending can generate employment, stimulate innovation, and increase exports, it rarely brings about a sustainable transformation of the broader economy. At best, such models have produced partial gains, and Europe's current path may well result in a similar pattern of limited achievements.

Nonetheless—with the war in Ukraine ongoing and no credible political resolution in sight, and with institutional reform efforts stalling due to fears of empowering far-right movements—some continue to hope that military Keynesianism might offer an imperfect but necessary lifeline to pull Europe back from its current state of disarray.

font change